donnffd:


What are you saying?, if thats an attempt to insult, i would advise to refrain from it and use your intellect instead of your heart in arguing.

We have heard the argument all over and over again, the fundamental constants are just right and if slightly deviated from its current values would result in a universe far different from this.

Now i am asking you, Have you seen another universe for you to deduce that this one was fine-tuned?, Have you compared this one with any other one?, are you basing your judgement on a sample size of one?

butterfly88:
not attempting to insult you bro..only asking if you fully grasp the concept of fine tuning..i'm also not claiming to be a master in the field

as for the bolded...this one is not a question of using the heart in argument(it isn't a topic of love)...various scientists(atheist and Theist) have argued in this line and have supported the concept of fine tuning notable of then is stephen hawking...and others too have argued on the contrary

I am a student of knowledge and if you logic/opinion on the topic is superior I'll gladly accept

having different opinions on something isn't a crime by the way.

as for your question my topic isn't about comparing one universe with another but about the fundamental constants that governs the universe...why are they so "carefully chosen" to accommodate life?

AgentOfAllah:
What do you understand by the term "physical constant"? Because you've mentioned a mighty lot of things, and of all these, only Planck length is veritably a "physical constant".

Again, do you know what a constant is? And, in the scale of the universe, you live on an inconsequential accretion of matter not even worthy of being called a blemish, yet you seem to think the universe is not hostile to life. How have you arrived at your conclusion?

You assume all the other fundamental forces shouldn't scale with a change in the value of the strong nuclear interaction. If these forces are multiple expressions of a grand unified model, there is no reason why one should be independent of the other.

You have not shown that the universe is conducive for life. Let's put things in perspective: The density of the universe is 10^-27 kg/m³. This implies that for every cubic meter of space in the universe, there is on average, roughly only one hydrogen atom. Try to process that thought, and you will come to appreciate that much of the observable universe is vacuum; and vacuum, sir, is not conducive for life at all.

It is true that the fundamental constants seem finely adjusted to allow for the development of life, but this is not the same as the claim the the universe is conducive for life. Be careful about making exorbitant claims like that! Finally, that the fundamental constants seem "finely tuned" does not mean they are in fact, "finely tuned". You should read a little on the anthropic principles. The fact is that we don't have a clue why these things appear to be so fine-tuned in this manner, but I encourage you to think about the implication that emerges from your "intelligent design" claim.

To state that the universal constants are so finely tuned that they suggest the input of some purposeful designer invariably suggests that this designer must force their designs to conform to certain constraining rules, outside of which, they are unable to be creative. For example, if god used 0.1C instead of C as the speed of light in its attempt to convert energy into mass, matter would not exist. This means god itself is subject to some objective physical laws. While succumbing to the inexorability of these physical laws may suggest an intelligent designer, it tells an unflattering account of your "all powerful" intelligent designer.

donnffd:


You still dont get my point...

@bolded
1. There is no evidence yet to confirm anybody chose anything.

2. It could be argued that the universe was fine-tuned for stars rather than life because stars are littered everywhere in the universe but life is very very limited.

3. Saying the universe is fine-tuned is also acknowledging that you know the difference between a fine-tuned universe and a "not fine-tuned" one hence me asking, how can you make such a conclusion when you have a sample size of one?(i used the snow-flake example, i suggest you refer to it), its simple logic.

So, if you have just a single example, how can you know whether it was fine-tuned or not, when you dont even know what a "not fine-tuned" universe looks like (i really dont know how i will explain for you to understand again oooo!).

butterfly88:
other fundamental constants asides Planck's lengths include, the Newtonian constant of gravitation, speed of light in a vacuum, harthee constant,stefan boltzmann constant, josephen constants et cetera...

Let's call the others "finely tuned constants or better still parameters"

these physical constants are also life friendly so to say...take for instance the velocity of light..i gave john.ydon n22 an example on how it will affect the luminosity of stars and render the universe adverse to life

all the gravitation constants,if weaker or stronger it will affect the temperature of stars..and if the stars were too hot it will burn out too quickly and to cool it will render fusion impossible hence making life impossible.

now a quick look at antrophic principle

Robert dicke laid down his argument in this manner - assuming gravity was a hair stronger or the Big Bang a sliver weaker, and therefore the universe’s lifespan significantly shorter, we couldn’t be here to think about it. Because we’re here, the universe has to be the way it is and therefore isn’t unlikely at all.

this to clearly supports "fine tuning" and most likely a conscious designer.

butterfly88:
you are not addressing the o.p, I never disputed or tried to dispute organisms ability to adapt.

my argument revolves around the fundamental forces that governs our universe..and like I said and is correctly known if any of them had other values asides the present,there will be no us...and we wouldn't be here to speak of adaptation in the 1st place....how come all these values appear to be "carefully chosen" to suit life...is this evidence of calculation and planning and hence evidence of an intelligent designer or this correctly chosen values just came up coincidentally as sirwere pointed

Let me explain why I used the fish. If the pressure of the environment is reduced, the fish dies. If the salinity is reduced, the fish dies. Just the same way if the electromagnetic force is altered, we would not be here.

We met this conditions here and we got used to them but we can't know if this is the best nature could provide since it is only one sample we have (the universe). As Donffd said nature is not here to support life nor destroy it, nature just is.

Also, if our atmospheric pressure is reduced, we would all boil to death but the pressure is just right for us. Did we adapt our physiology to these conditions or it was designed for us
If we leave earth without a space suit, we would boil to death due to the low atmospheric pressure just the same way if electromagnetic force was lower or higher we would not be here. So ur post points to how we got here with this precise conditions. But I don't agree it is precise. It just is.

AgentOfAllah:
Most of the universe is still adverse to life. You cannot - because you exist on a tiny speckle of dust that is conducive to life - extrapolate that the universe is conducive to life.

This doesn't seem to be the doing of an all powerful god. Surely, the creative force of an all powerful god cannot be constrained by the effects of gravity. It rather seems to me that god was bound by these laws, thus, constructing the universe using the right constant values, otherwise its work would have been DOA. This means that the laws and constants you talk about preponderate god.

This is a misunderstood reading of the anthropic principle. It states simply, that we observe the universe because (local) conditions are conducive for an observer to exist within the same universe. In other words, we wouldn't exist to question how well-tuned the constants of the universe are were it to be any other way, so there is nothing remarkable that we just so happen to exist here.

butterfly88:
I really don't understand what you mean by a "misunderstood reading" of the anthropic principle, for most of the proponents of the principle support the view that the universe is fined tuned

taking the bolded a step further it simply means that our seemingly fortuitous, suspiciously specific locale, temperature range, chemical and physical milieus are just what’s needed to produce life.

butterfly88:

why are all these parameters "just right" for life?

johnydon22:
In a random dirty puddle in the ground an amoeba lives, the puddle has just the right temperature, just the right salinity and texture and so the amoeba thinks

"This puddle must certainly have been made specially for me"

This is the situation here, just like the amoeba the fact that we are means the universe can accomodate us, if this was a universe that cannot accomodate us, we won't be here and we won't ask this question.

In this cosmic causality there are two possibilities.

-either the universe can accomodate life
-or it can't

So do you think one part of the coin is likely without interference from extra-cosmic intelligence and not the other half, the possibility is like a coin tose so both are equally fully possible with or without such external interference

But just like the amoeba - We found ourselves in a universe that can accomodate us therefore we begin to think that the universe was made just to accomodate us.

That is a grand delusion of the amoeba -

99.9% of the universe is hostile to organic molecules [ultimately life] i wonder how such a hostile universe was caused with a purpose of harbouring life in mind cus it seems that is a project gone wrong.

It is absurd to assume that all the universe is was tweeked just for you..

donnffd:


This is the issue...

Even if the universe was fine-tuned, why are you so sure it was for life?

Ceretrons:

What your definition of life?